Armstrong is who the pacers need. Too bad he's 38. But if he could I'd love to see him play 38 minutes a night. I love DA

One thing I noticed tonight is the Pacers are a better team when Dunleavy is on the court. I really like his game, he just makes things work, he makes the smart play, good team defender and usually makes the right decision. His pass along the baseline to Murph was a thing of beauty.

The bottom line on Dunleavy is this: when he's out of the game the Pacers suffer and I noticed tonight that I missed him when he was on the bench and couldn't wait to see him on the court again.

I love DA - that is the type of player I've wanted at point guard for years. A leader, a hustler - sure he's not the most talented point guard, but I love him.

More later

Anthem

01-22-2007, 09:44 PM

Grr.... I worked hard to get my thread in first!

Ahh well.

arenn

01-22-2007, 09:47 PM

I thought you were talking about Dunleavy.....

Jermaniac

01-22-2007, 09:47 PM

I dont agree on DA, if he had the legs he had when he was 30 yes I would say you are right. But I dont want DA taking shots or playing after he has played about 20 minutes. Too bad he had to tonight because Orien Greene is tottally out of control when it comes to running the point on offense.

Also WTF was Rick doing? Again this man has no clue how to coach against a run. The Bulls kept chipping away at our lead, and the man kept playing Orien. Our offense flowed like beautiful waterfalls when Dunleavy and Quis ran the point. After the 2nd qtr we never saw that again.

Shade

01-22-2007, 09:48 PM

If a 38-year-old PG is our answer, the question must be "How can the Pacers skyrocket toward the #1 draft pick?"

Dunleavy is known for his inconsistency, so let's see where he goes from here.

Evan_The_Dude

01-22-2007, 09:49 PM

I'd like to see more of Tinsley with this team before I come to a conclusion that he's not the right guy for us. But it seemed like the guys were pretty loose out there tonight. Maybe Carlisle has a lot more confidence in this version of the Pacers offensively.

DG4mvp

01-22-2007, 09:50 PM

Armstrong is who the pacers need. Too bad he's 38. But if he could I'd love to see him play 38 minutes a night. I love DA

One thing I noticed tonight is the Pacers are a better team when Dunleavy is on the court.

More later

I might have missed it but I did not see him wear down as the game went on. Are we sure DA cannot play 30 min a night ? Because we would be a lock for 49 wins and the 4th seed if he does. I might be overstating it but the P's are just much better when he is on the court.

Hicks

01-22-2007, 09:51 PM

If a 38-year-old PG is our answer, the question must be "How can the Pacers skyrocket toward the #1 draft pick?"

Dunleavy is known for his inconsistency, so let's see where he goes from here.

I don't follow. He's an inconsistent team player? Inconsistent at moving the ball? Inconsistent at bring it up the court? Because those are the things that he does to make us better.

Kstat

01-22-2007, 09:51 PM

Come on, UB....

You can't start a 38-year old PG. His legs would be gone in a month.

Putnam

01-22-2007, 09:51 PM

There was a lot there to like, despite the fact that the big lead disappeared.

The Bulls' defensive strategy of collapsing on O'Neal worked too well for too long, and the Pacers need to punish that. There were a few plays where all 5 Bulls were swarming Jermaine. Teams should be allowed to do that, but somebody has to be able to punish them until they stop it.

Antonio

01-22-2007, 09:53 PM

I really liked the backcourt with Daniels and Dunleavy in the first half. I don't understand why Carlisle didn't repeat it during the second...

Shade

01-22-2007, 09:55 PM

I don't follow. He's an inconsistent team player? Inconsistent at moving the ball? Inconsistent at bring it up the court? Because those are the things that he does to make us better.

Inconsistent in shooting and effort.

Shade

01-22-2007, 09:56 PM

I really liked the backcourt with Daniels and Dunleavy in the first half. I don't understand why Carlisle didn't repeat it during the second...

I haven't been able to understand Rick's rotations for quite some time now, and that's my #1 gripe about him. Half the time it seems like he's playing NBA2K7 out there.

Putnam

01-22-2007, 09:59 PM

The announced crowd was 13,233.

Roferr

01-22-2007, 10:01 PM

I second the notion that Daniels and Dun were working great together and we were playing a very fast game. Don't know why it wasn't repeated in the second half. Greene looked like he was lost.

DA played a terrific game. It's too bad that his legs will probably not hold up but there's no denying that he is a catalyst for our team. Maybe Tins should be taking some lessons.

A win is a win. Especially while our new members are getting acclimated to each other. Overall, I liked what I saw tonight. But like someone said we should have made them pay by doubling and tripling JO. It seemed when they did this most, Murph or Dun wasn't in the game. We need a shooter or two for JO to kick the ball back out for a wide open shot.

!Pacers-Fan!

01-22-2007, 10:01 PM

We need Kirk Hinrich.

Evan_The_Dude

01-22-2007, 10:02 PM

Come on, UB....

You can't start a 38-year old PG. His legs would be gone in a month.

:confused:

age in the NBA is overrated. there's a long list of players who have been effective well into their late 30's.

Kstat

01-22-2007, 10:05 PM

I said effective. I didn't say effective for 30+ minutes per game.

Unless your name is john stockton, I don't recall any guy that old that can play starters' minutes at PG for an extended period.

BlueNGold

01-22-2007, 10:06 PM

I really liked the backcourt with Daniels and Dunleavy in the first half. I don't understand why Carlisle didn't repeat it during the second...

Maybe the Bulls went small and he thought he had to match up. I thought Army played well, but you are absolutely correct. Daniels and Dunleavy should have been on the floor the whole time.

I can only guess RC wanted to keep the game close. It was the best the team has looked all year. Maybe RC is trying to prop up Tinsley's trade value...and allowing a blowout would reduce it.

Unclebuck

01-22-2007, 10:09 PM

Come on, UB....

You can't start a 38-year old PG. His legs would be gone in a month.

I'm starting to wonder if I left something out of my post because I thought I said that, but the point being is that "If" he could play 35 minutes a game - he's the player I want.

This is the post game thread, so let's discuss the whole game, I know DA cannot be the point guard, I was being a little sarcastic.

I did love the ball movement tonight. Without Jax, Al and Jamaal the ball really moves.

I know you can't start a 38 year old.

I hope Diogu isn't given up on or passed by for now. I understand that it will take him some time, but I hope Rick doesn't keep him out of the rotation

LG33

01-22-2007, 10:12 PM

Only 13 minutes for Foster...anything we should know?

Unclebuck

01-22-2007, 10:13 PM

Inconsistent in shooting and effort.

He is a streak shooter, but I don't think he is a streaky effort player.

arenn

01-22-2007, 10:17 PM

Let me just say this. Defense was not stellar, but regardless, this was just a more fun team to watch tonight than the old Pacers squad. Hopefully these guys will gel quickly and we can improve our standing. But we need to tighten the D and the defensive boards in order to beat quality opponents. With free League Pass this week, I'm looking forward to seeing another game or two (I hope).

bnd45

01-22-2007, 10:18 PM

Well if Armstrong is up for it, then he should be our clear cut backup PG. He runs the team better than Greene and defensively is right there. I am glad to hear that the big backcorut (MD & MD) got a chance to play tonight.

I hope Tinsley watched his 38 year teammate put on a clinic on how this team needs to be run.

maragin

01-22-2007, 10:18 PM

It's not often I disagree with the title of the post-game thread, but I suppose there will always be exceptions.

Unclebuck

01-22-2007, 10:23 PM

The announced crowd was 13,233.

Well I guess my post back in October questioning those who said they would never go to another game if Jackson was still on the Pacers. I guess I've been proven "wrong". People are flocking back to the Pacers in droves.

The point I was making back in October is that those people who said they would never go to anopther Pacers game if Jax was still on the team - were fans who never went to games anyway. (disclaimer: I'm talking in general terms I'm sure there are some)

BlueNGold

01-22-2007, 10:25 PM

Only 13 minutes for Foster...anything we should know?

I think it's important to notice that we beat them badly on the boards without really using Foster. No way that would ever happen prior to the trade.

Dunleavy and Murphy might make Jeff a tradeable commodity. Not saying we should do that. Murphy did not play well and still pulled down 8 boards and scored 7 points...and had 4 assists. I think he will blow up for 15 and 12 sometime soon. He's a talented player.

Dunleavy should be our PG...er, Point-forward. I think he's underrated on defense.

I really think it's obvious these guys fit better on our team. Jack was a loss from a talent standpoint, but he had to go.

Dr. Goldfoot

01-22-2007, 10:33 PM

How long til people start whining about Dunleavy's .367 shooting %?

Quis

01-22-2007, 10:35 PM

Come on, UB....

You can't start a 38-year old PG. His legs would be gone in a month.

Sure, if it's someone like Chris Webber who's broken down at the age of 34. But someone like Darrell Armstrong? This guy could seemingly play 30+ minutes a night until he's 50. He's showing no signs of slowing down.

PaceBalls

01-22-2007, 10:37 PM

Armstrong is who the pacers need. Too bad he's 38. But if he could I'd love to see him play 38 minutes a night. I love DA

One thing I noticed tonight is the Pacers are a better team when Dunleavy is on the court. I really like his game, he just makes things work, he makes the smart play, good team defender and usually makes the right decision. His pass along the baseline to Murph was a thing of beauty.

The bottom line on Dunleavy is this: when he's out of the game the Pacers suffer and I noticed tonight that I missed him when he was on the bench and couldn't wait to see him on the court again.

I love DA - that is the type of player I've wanted at point guard for years. A leader, a hustler - sure he's not the most talented point guard, but I love him.

More later

The DA who played tonight would lead us to a championship if he played like that every game. Hustle is the most important part of the game IMO, especially at the PG position. Of course, that was probably his best game he has played in a few years. Still, it is also better than any game that Tinsley has played this year.

I have no problem with him getting 30+ mins. Who cares if he is 38 years old, the guy plays with more effort than almost everyone else younger than him in the league.

Roaming Gnome

01-22-2007, 10:39 PM

On the point guard issue, if we can't turn the clock back on Army...how about finding/getting a player that is similar? Too bad only one or two players come to mind.

Are there any point guards that play with Armstrong's intensity and skill? Jameer Nelson came to mind for me, but I don't see Orlando letting him go anytime soon.

PaceBalls

01-22-2007, 10:45 PM

How long til people start whining about Dunleavy's .367 shooting %?

Probably not too long...

BUT, I felt safe with him on the court. I feel he is gonna do the right thing. When Jackson would get the ball with 10 seconds on the shotclock I would hold my breath and say, "Cmon man yer due to hit one!!" and more often than not I would be surprised when something good came out of that. Don't get me wrong though, I loved Jacksons hustle (when not whining at the refs), toughness and D. But he didn't always make the right plays on offense.
Junior seems to be much more skilled in that sense... making the right offensive plays. I found myself wanting Rick to put him back in the game when he was out.

maragin

01-22-2007, 11:01 PM

Only 13 minutes for Foster...anything we should know?

Well, I think we should know he's improved his shooting to 86% these last 4 games. (12 of 14)

Unclebuck

01-22-2007, 11:06 PM

I'm not going to complain about Dunleavy's shooting % because that isn't his game. He isn't a shooter, he's a faciliatator.

Roam, I can't think of any point guards who play like DA. He's unique

Anthem

01-22-2007, 11:24 PM

I hope Diogu isn't given up on or passed by for now. I understand that it will take him some time, but I hope Rick doesn't keep him out of the rotation
Honestly?

I like Ike, but would be completely fine with having HIM be the trade bait with Tinsley. For this team, Foster is more valuable. Plus, I'd like to see more of Baston. And teams looking for young prospects would snap up somebody like Ike, but not necessarily Foster.

croz24

01-22-2007, 11:41 PM

look at it this way, IF the pacers start to roll with the unit we have and it still remains obvious we need a pg to take it to the next level, i believe we'll look to make that move. we definitely have 2 young, very attractive pieces in diogu and shawne that could get us that pg.

FrenchConnection

01-22-2007, 11:55 PM

If a 38-year-old PG is our answer, the question must be "How can the Pacers skyrocket toward the #1 draft pick?"

Dunleavy is known for his inconsistency, so let's see where he goes from here.

You are reading too much into the Warriers fans opinion of him. They were upset with him from the moment he was drafted. They wanted him to be worth his high draft position, but we want him to be a high energy player that can move the ball. He will do that on a night to night basis. He will never be able to create his own shot, but if you know that going in then you will not be dissapointed.

PacerMan

01-22-2007, 11:56 PM

How long til people start whining about Dunleavy's .367 shooting %?

When we lose 2 in a row.

PacerMan

01-23-2007, 12:01 AM

Honestly?

I like Ike, but would be completely fine with having HIM be the trade bait with Tinsley. For this team, Foster is more valuable. Plus, I'd like to see more of Baston. And teams looking for young prospects would snap up somebody like Ike, but not necessarily Foster.

The guy was untouchable last season. Getting him is a prize. Jermaine isn't going to be around forever. You gotta keep him until you decide he isn't going to be a player.
I'm sure you're right about his being worth more than Foster in trade value.

mcampbellarch

01-23-2007, 12:08 AM

Quin the commentator guy observed that when Greene was in at point he was taking so much time getting up the court that the defense was getting set up on JO, and thus creating the stagnancy.

Fair enough, I just know he does not have that much experience and figured any time is good for him so long as the consequences are acceptable.

But what say you all about the general time in the back court principle? I think the offense certainly flowed better this evening with DA, and certainly don't care for Tins slow walks up the court.

Maybe while they are not a running team, they are not really a half court team either. Or at least not as good as you need to be at that sort thing to really pull it off. Regardless, nice to see the flow, the win, and more people chasing rebounds.

But I was bummed that Baston didnt see some time.

Anthem

01-23-2007, 12:09 AM

The guy was untouchable last season. Getting him is a prize. Jermaine isn't going to be around forever. You gotta keep him until you decide he isn't going to be a player.
I'm sure you're right about his being worth more than Foster in trade value.
We've built this team to compete now. I don't want to mortgage the future, but I'd rather have a good point guard than 4 forwards with potential. Especially when we don't have minutes for all 4.

PacerMan

01-23-2007, 12:11 AM

look at it this way, IF the pacers start to roll with the unit we have and it still remains obvious we need a pg to take it to the next level, i believe we'll look to make that move. we definitely have 2 young, very attractive pieces in diogu and shawne that could get us that pg.

I'm not giving up those 2 for less than a top tier pg which can't happen for contracts matching.
These guys we just got MAY improve us some but I don't see any kind of dominant type team with this group, even with a very good pg. We are very soft up front defensively with this group.
"I" think the the future is Diogu and Granger and hopefully Shawne with perhaps Jermaine being the guy going for the big name pg if we haven't developed anything by then from the draft or trades.

naptown

01-23-2007, 12:15 AM

Dunleavy is known for his inconsistency, so let's see where he goes from here.

He is known as an inconsistent shooter. Not inconsistent in the intelligence department. Even when his shot is off he will always continue to do the little things that help you win ball games. In time all you folks will love what this guy brings to the court night in and night out.

It is no coincidence that he is adjusting faster than Troy and Ike. The guy just understands the game itself on a level most in this league do not.

OTD

01-23-2007, 12:18 AM

Yes Murphy had 34 min 8 boards and 7pt, Jeff had 13min and 5 boards.and 4pt . I agree what is RC thinking or is he? What a way to reward a guy who gives eveything he has every game.

v_d_g

01-23-2007, 12:23 AM

If a 38-year-old PG is our answer, the question must be "How can the Pacers skyrocket toward the #1 draft pick?"

Dunleavy is known for his inconsistency, so let's see where he goes from here.

Ummmmmmmmm

no 2007 #1, remember?

TPTB gave it away for AL

maybe they can work another masterful trade and give away the Pacers' 2008 #1

Shack80

01-23-2007, 12:35 AM

That is what I keep telling myself also Quis. I just hope it is all true. I do like this team better.

Quis

01-23-2007, 12:35 AM

I'd trade Diogu for a PG, but only if the PG we recieved was very good or had the potential to be very good. I'm talking Devin Harris/Raymond Felton/Jameer Nelson level.

mike_D

01-23-2007, 12:58 AM

Though Armstrong is 38 he hasn't played the big minutes through out his career.Like a Gary Payton,Reggie Miller has.He only averaged over 30 minutes per game 3 or 4 times in his career, his last couple of years he was hardly used I wonder how much he really has left in him.

I wonder if Rick could get away with starting Armstrong and say Daniels in the backcourt and play him about 25 minutes per game for the rest of the season and have Dunlevy take the remaining pg minutes/SG minutes. Would Armstrong burn out if he played that many minutes?

Dr. Goldfoot

01-23-2007, 01:18 AM

They brought alot of energy in the first half. They shared the ball. They ran the court. It was exciting. I think it may have been a by-product of an 80% new starting lineup. The sharing of the ball, extraordinary hustle etc...it's human nature and even has name due to the commonality of the situation (Honeymoon Period). I'd like to see this effort, propensity to share, and winning the rest of the year but the pessimist in me thinks it will even out over time. All of the patting on the back, joking with the bench, smiling and nodding that was my fault man and expecting a smile back with a "It's cool" look eventually will become a little less congenial. We all know what Armstrong brings and we all knew he couldn't sustain it for an entire game and he didn't. He left it all on the floor. Unfortunately, the NBA season is a marathon and not a sprint. He played well and the stat sheet reflects that, but he's not the anything of the future except maybe former NBA player. Jermaine got another double double tonight but went 8 for 22 from the floor. He also added one more to his team high 19 games leading the team in turnovers and had no problem chewing out somebody a couple of times. I didn't get a clear picture of whose fault the breakdowns were. It's tough to complain about O'neal though. Murphy may eventually stretch the defense but Foster got the do-do stick tonight...13 minutes? He needs something closer to 20 a night. With the exception of his 3 T/O's, Daniels looked like the guy everybody described over the summer. Granger's was a quietly effective 19, but I'm not thrilled with 3 rebounds. Murphy was ok. He hit the shots he should and missed a couple of gimme's and a couple of why did he shoot that's. I like someone else on the team being able to rebound and hit a jumper. Dunleavy filled the stat sheet but I hope his shooting % starts to rise, 6 of 17 followed by 5 of 13 makes him second only to Greene as the lowest on the team. I jokingly mentioned this earlier in the thread but then looked back at his gamelogs and he's been in a shooting slump dating back about 15 games or so. Which gets me to Greene. I haven't really seen enough of him yet to make any statements. A few minutes here and a few minutes there, usually in blowouts. He looked pretty bad tonight. He played some passes pretty well and knocked a few loose but I saw him get burnt a few times, too. To say he has no shot is an understatement. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with him getting any more minutes than the kind he has so far.

I liked what I saw tonight and hope Armstrong can continue to give us 15-20 a night like he did against the Bulls. Maybe if Dunleavy can find his shot and Jeff, dare I say, find him name on the starters list again.......

dohman

01-23-2007, 01:24 AM

Yes Murphy had 34 min 8 boards and 7pt, Jeff had 13min and 5 boards.and 4pt . I agree what is RC thinking or is he? What a way to reward a guy who gives eveything he has every game.

not to mention his 4 assists.. his bock and his 2 steals.

I am probably one of the biggest foster fans on this website. But murphy is clearly the player we have been needing out there with JO.

as far as MDJ shooting. If I remember correctly he was like 50 percent until late the 4 quarter. Has to be a change going from playing backup min to playing 9/10 of the game. After a while a jump shooters legs are goign to get tired until he gets used to the min.

CableKC

01-23-2007, 01:45 AM

I really liked the backcourt with Daniels and Dunleavy in the first half. I don't understand why Carlisle didn't repeat it during the second...
I think we have our PD dial-in question to Rick's next show.

CableKC

01-23-2007, 02:04 AM

I hope Diogu isn't given up on or passed by for now. I understand that it will take him some time, but I hope Rick doesn't keep him out of the rotation
I know that I maybe stretching....but IMHO Carlisle only plays players and rotations that he is comfortable with and only changes things up ( like using possibly using a huge lineup or playing young players ) when he is forced to ( due to injuries ).

I have a bad feeling about Ike's minutes and development under Carlisle. I suspect that Carlisle is forced to give Diogu minutes by TPTB. I didn't watch the Chicago game....but Diogu only played 5 minutes where he only fouled 1 player. I know that he really sucks on learning plays of any kind and can become a black hole on the offensive end......but did he do anything that warranted being limited to 5 minutes?

CableKC

01-23-2007, 02:19 AM

Yes Murphy had 34 min 8 boards and 7pt, Jeff had 13min and 5 boards.and 4pt . I agree what is RC thinking or is he? What a way to reward a guy who gives eveything he has every game.

Did Foster simply play 13 minutes at the beginning of the game?

or

Was his minutes spread out over the course of the game?

I hope that he only played 13 minutes due to some incurred injury over the course of the game....but as far as I am concerned....if there is a way to cut back on the # of overall minutes that Foster plays over the course of the regular season, then I am happy.

Bball

01-23-2007, 02:25 AM

We didn't necessarily find our PG but surely we saw more info that Tinsley is not our PG.

-Bball

Robertmto

01-23-2007, 02:30 AM

Are there any point guards that play with Armstrong's intensity and skill? Jameer Nelson came to mind for me, but I don't see Orlando letting him go anytime soon.

Yea there is one but he just got traded - Earl Boykins.

imawhat

01-23-2007, 02:43 AM

I have one thing to say...

I LOVE the big lineup we had in...MDJ, MD, Granger, Foster, Jermaine. That was an awesome lineup. To see how well their defense played against Chicago was great. A team that can create penetration had very little at that time. I really, really hope we go big more often.

Also, I LOVE the idea of a Diogu/Foster frontcourt coming off the bench. It hasn't worked out yet, but that is some manpower down low. This could turn into something special.

I saw a game from the Pacers that I haven't seen in a long time. It's much more fun to watch this group play; I hope it can continue. The pieces certainly look like they fit together much better now.

Trader Joe

01-23-2007, 02:47 AM

Ummmmmmmmm

no 2007 #1, remember?

TPTB gave it away for AL

maybe they can work another masterful trade and give away the Pacers' 2008 #1

Now you are just making yourself look foolish you don't even know the facts of the trade. The first is either lotto or top ten protected I can't remember exactly which so in Shade's scenario of us being in the running for the number 1 overall we would have our pick. Please if you are going to bash something at least have your facts straight. I think I speak for everyone when I say this is getting darn tiresome reading post after post about this trade.

naptown

01-23-2007, 02:59 AM

I know that I maybe stretching....but IMHO Carlisle only plays players and rotations that he is comfortable with and only changes things up ( like using possibly using a huge lineup or playing young players ) when he is forced to ( due to injuries ).

I have a bad feeling about Ike's minutes and development under Carlisle. I suspect that Carlisle is forced to give Diogu minutes by TPTB. I didn't watch the Chicago game....but Diogu only played 5 minutes where he only fouled 1 player. I know that he really sucks on learning plays of any kind and can become a black hole on the offensive end......but did he do anything that warranted being limited to 5 minutes?

Match ups. With the line ups that Chicago used most of the night it was beneficial to have Troy out there a lot due to his perimeter game. It forced Wallace away from the basket by having to stay with Troy. Big Ben had 3 boards and 1 block. We not only neutralized him but we made him a complete and total non factor in this game because he was not allowed to cheat off of Jeff like he usually does.

And when Chicago did not have Ben or PJ in there they went very small with a bunch of perimeter players. You dont want Ike defending out on the perimeter. So it was nothing against Ike, it was just a matter of match ups.

You also have to keep in mind that Rick has his hands full right now. It takes time to incorporate 3 new guys in mid season and still try to get wins. Once Mike and Troy are comfy you are going to see them focus more on Ike. But right now the priority is getting Mike and Troy up to speed as fast as possible.

McKeyFan

01-23-2007, 05:32 AM

I didn't see the game, but it seems reasonable that the MD-MD combination wasn't used again because Rick is trying to test all his pieces for a few games before he locks in. Only makes sense.

While it may have been a risk using Greene in the second half, at least he was able to test his skills (sounds like he didn't do so well). But, if this was Rick's intent, he was able to pull it off without a loss.

You think this was why MD-MD didn't play in the second half?

hoopsforlife

01-23-2007, 05:55 AM

We didn't necessarily find our PG but surely we saw more info that Tinsley is not our PG.

-Bball

While the game was being played I kept thinking to myself "finally they have found a position Tinsley can play perfectly". I hope they can keep him in it.

Its possible he is being traded and was held out for that reason. The Bulls feed stated Tinsley was in his Uniform pregame, stated he was OK to go and was told "you are not playing tonight".

Not sure what to make of that but I don't think he was really injured or sick.

Phildog

01-23-2007, 08:27 AM

These conspiracy theories are hilarious. Oneal had a rough game tonight....lets trade him too!! Good lord, give us like more than 1 game to see if Tins can make it happen. He has been playing hurt-could be an explanation for the slump. Yes, he makes some questionable decisions, but so do Darrel Armstrong. Seeing only faults and not looking at any positives is a major knock against a lot of posters on here.

indygeezer

01-23-2007, 08:46 AM

While the game was being played I kept thinking to myself "finally they have found a position Tinsley can play perfectly". I hope they can keep him in it.

Its possible he is being traded and was held out for that reason. The Bulls feed stated Tinsley was in his Uniform pregame, stated he was OK to go and was told "you are not playing tonight".

Not sure what to make of that but I don't think he was really injured or sick.

Now that is interesting..Can anyone at the game confirm SEEING Tinsley in uniform during pre-game?

I loved the energy I saw last night...let's hope they can sustain!

I watched in amazement and nearly cried during the game...I was seeing 2 sometimes even three Pacers battling for the same rebound!!! You just cannot imagine how happy that makes me:cry:

UB....I thought you stated it clearly...DA is the man he's just too old...you were clear enough that I could get your meaning anyway. Which brings up the point that DA stated during his interview played by Channel 13, that if there were another game tonight he'd probably have to sit it out, that he was just too old to go that long especially several games in few nights (or words to that effect).

That seemed pretty up-tempo last night...how much of the offense was RC directing?

Unclebuck

01-23-2007, 08:59 AM

We didn't necessarily find our PG but surely we saw more info that Tinsley is not our PG.

-Bball

That is the best point made in this thread.

But let me expand on the issue. We saw what leadership, defense and timely shotmaking can go. We saw what unselfish play and excellent ball movement can do. Not to rip on Tinsley - but the Pacers team has changed with Dunleavy on the floor - someone who brings point guard skills to whatever position he plays - he can make plays - he can create. We don't need a point guard who has to dominate the ball and a point guard who needs to create all the plays. And when Dun isn't on the floor Daniels more than likely will be, and he can also create things.

So I don't think the new Pacers need a point guard like Tinsley as much as the old Pacers did.

So if the Pacers can find a point guard who can just get the team into their offense - and by that I mean make the pass to start the offense (because once that happens we don't need a true point guard) If the Pacers can find a point guard who is a above average shooter a guy teams won't leave wide open all the time and if the pacers can find a point guard who is an above average defender - I think that is all they need. Don't misread what I'm saying because the player I'm describing is AJ. I don't expect the pacers to re-acquire him - but if the Pacers could acquire a point guard of that caliber - I'd be happy.

Roferr

01-23-2007, 09:26 AM

With Murphy on board as a good rebounder, it's a possibility that Jeff is expendable now. I would hate to see Jeff move on, however if we could pick up a good PG, that might be the last piece we need to make a run.

naptownmenace

01-23-2007, 09:44 AM

Juan Dixon might be a good fit here. Jarret Jack or Chris Duhon might work as well.

Ultimately, I'd love to get Delonte West from Boston. He is a good defender and shooter and he plays hard. Another important fact is he doesn't think he's a star (unlike Tinsley).

3rdStrike

01-23-2007, 09:51 AM

Time for Bird to call up his Celtics buddies and get us a PG!

But why does everyone insist on saying Daniels and Dunleavy can run the point? Daniels has a 1.3 : 1.06 assist to turnover ratio.

Dunleavy's is 3.1 : 1.85 ... better, but neither of those is even 2 : 1 which IMO is the minimum for a player who averages under 4.5 APG to be considered a reliable, good distributor.

andreialta

01-23-2007, 10:10 AM

I don't follow. He's an inconsistent team player? Inconsistent at moving the ball? Inconsistent at bring it up the court? Because those are the things that he does to make us better.

As fan, his inconsistency is only on shooting, thats just where he struggles, i don't know, but he has a great form but sometimes his shot just won't go in, but he is consistent in everything else, he sets screens, boxes out, keep moving without the ball, i mean even if he is having a bad game he is still there and can definitely feel his prescense on the court, it was just bad how warriors fan didn't appreciate all this, all they care about is dunk and highlights. lol

arenn

01-23-2007, 10:26 AM

One big difference last night was Foster not being on the court. As much as we appreciate his defensive, rebounding, and hustle, he is not an offensive threat. When we are playing 4 on 5 on offense, it's easy to see how we don't look good. As I kept saying to myself, it's amazing how much different the offense looks when all five guys on the floor are at least a threat to score. That makes it much easier on a point guard too.

Evan_The_Dude

01-23-2007, 10:42 AM

That is the best point made in this thread.

But let me expand on the issue. We saw what leadership, defense and timely shotmaking can go. We saw what unselfish play and excellent ball movement can do. Not to rip on Tinsley - but the Pacers team has changed with Dunleavy on the floor - someone who brings point guard skills to whatever position he plays - he can make plays - he can create. We don't need a point guard who has to dominate the ball and a point guard who needs to create all the plays. And when Dun isn't on the floor Daniels more than likely will be, and he can also create things.

So I don't think the new Pacers need a point guard like Tinsley as much as the old Pacers did.

So if the Pacers can find a point guard who can just get the team into their offense - and by that I mean make the pass to start the offense (because once that happens we don't need a true point guard) If the Pacers can find a point guard who is a above average shooter a guy teams won't leave wide open all the time and if the pacers can find a point guard who is an above average defender - I think that is all they need. Don't misread what I'm saying because the player I'm describing is AJ. I don't expect the pacers to re-acquire him - but if the Pacers could acquire a point guard of that caliber - I'd be happy.

This is exactly what I saw after the first game, I just thought it was a bit premature to draw that conclusion. But I agree with you 100%. Not that Tinsley is a bad player, but the need for a point guard with his skills just isn't necessary when you have as many players as we do that can handle the ball. We definitely could use a player that has a decent outside shot and can just get us into our offense. Steve Blake is a guy I've wanted since before he became somewhat known, but I see someone else took hold of him.

The funny thing is, the point guard that would be a perfect fit for this new version of the Pacers was just traded to the Warriors (Sarunas). I need to look at rosters around the league before I mention names that would be a good fit for us.

wjs

01-23-2007, 10:57 AM

The funny thing is, the point guard that would be a perfect fit for this new version of the Pacers was just traded to the Warriors (Sarunas).

Disagree. Sarunas was moved because, among other reasons, he cannot play defense. At all. And he still has problems bring the ball up-court! No thanks.

odeez

01-23-2007, 11:28 AM

Nice win by the Pacers. DA was amazing, too bad he is not 29, instead of 39. We have a real good chance of having the best record in the EAST. That should be the goal for us heading into the All Star break. Every game from now to then should be treated like a playoff game. Of course these guys need a little more time gel, but being at home will make that happen faster.

I think this team is better then the one we had before without a doubt. If you look at the game last night, we are spreading the floor with the new players we have. Giving JO mad space to work with. And if we are hitting our shots, plus with JO, we will be hard to stop.

Also can we stop talking about trading JO and the OLD players that use to be here. I think that the team we have NOW is what we should talk about. Just watch all these fake fans jump on when these Pacers start a winning streak.

diamonddave00

01-23-2007, 11:34 AM

My take as long as Dunleavy takes shots in flow of game and doesn't force them fans will tolerate him struggling.

Ike Diogu can not be packaged in a trade till this summer can only be moved as only Pacer in trade. Also the Pacers can not trade their 2008-#1 unless it for a 2007 #1 you can not trade #1's on consecitive years league rule.

Troy Murphy will become a bigger force on offense than he's shown so far.Foster and Diogu should prove very useful off the bench.

Look like Baston and Harrison can expect to be nicely paid fans barring injury.

Unclebuck

01-23-2007, 11:55 AM

I was reading the Chicago Papers today and all the talk is that the Pacers biug frontline dominated them. They need a offensive post player. Duhon isn't playing. Would the Bulls have any interest in Harrison.

Raskolnikov

01-23-2007, 12:23 PM

I read there finally was good ball movement.

:cloud9:

waxman

01-23-2007, 12:50 PM

I was reading the Chicago Papers today and all the talk is that the Pacers biug frontline dominated them. They need a offensive post player. Duhon isn't playing. Would the Bulls have any interest in Harrison.

:ding:

There ya go.... Duhon has been struggling lately and got buried on the bench. A change of scenery would do him good. He's a very much a DA type... ball-hawking guard. I'd hate to see Harrison go....but....

Aw Heck

01-23-2007, 12:55 PM

I was reading the Chicago Papers today and all the talk is that the Pacers biug frontline dominated them. They need a offensive post player. Duhon isn't playing. Would the Bulls have any interest in Harrison.
They're probably going to go after Gasol. Something like Gasol/filler for Gordon/Deng/PJ Brown/pick.

Duhon would be nice, but it would probably take a bit more than Harrison to get him.

CableKC

01-23-2007, 12:58 PM

So it was nothing against Ike, it was just a matter of match ups.
I was mainly referring to the development of Diogu ( which I understand, at this point of the season, is not as much of a priority as assimilating Dunleavy and Murphy into the offense ). I just really hoped that we could find a way to give Diogu a consistent 10 to 15 mintues a game to play, make mistakes and simply develop. I am really concerned that Carlisle will pay as much attention to Diogu ( in the near future ) as he did to Harrison ( in terms of development, allowance to make mistakes and minutes ).

Match ups. With the line ups that Chicago used most of the night it was beneficial to have Troy out there a lot due to his perimeter game. It forced Wallace away from the basket by having to stay with Troy. Big Ben had 3 boards and 1 block. We not only neutralized him but we made him a complete and total non factor in this game because he was not allowed to cheat off of Jeff like he usually does.

And when Chicago did not have Ben or PJ in there they went very small with a bunch of perimeter players. You dont want Ike defending out on the perimeter.
I understand the need for playing particular players in matchups....but I also recognize that there maybe particular lineups that ( for some reason or another ) work in certain situations ( from game to game and team to team ) that should be used. If Tinsley was able to play some minutes yesterday night, during the course of that huge run in the last couple of minutes in the 1st half, I wouldn't have been surprised if Carlisle called a timeout, pulled either Marquis or Dunleavy and inserted Tinsley in. To me...it all comes down to doing what Carlisle feels comfortable with. As everyone pointed out.....the MD+MD lineup seemed to work real well during the 1st half of the game. I didn't catch the 2nd half of the game....but was the MD+MD lineup used again ( at least extensively ) throught the rest of the game?

This indirectly goes with the periodic discussions that we have on PD about playing down to a team as opposed to having teams play up to us ( hence forcing our offensive and defensive will upon the opposing team ). Maybe its not as "cut and dry" as us "playing down to a team" as opposed to us "forcing teams to come up to our level".....but I think that there are situations where we find the right combination of players ( like going to a huge lineup that may seem unconventional and even "outside of his comfort zone" ) against certain teams that appear to work very well....but Carlisle inexplicably decides ( unsurprisingly ) decides to go back to a more conventional lineup that fits more in his "comfort zone".

Mourning

01-23-2007, 01:03 PM

With regards to the line ups I think Rick is experimenting rightnow.

He has two players he has to incorporate that play big minutes and two with minor minutes, while he just lost two starters and two other players. That means combined with different skill sets also adjustments of the new players and players that already were on the team and thus he needs to see what works best.

I think that together with the Bulls line up in the second half are the two key reasons here for why he used the line up's he used against the Bulls.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

docpaul

01-23-2007, 01:04 PM

That is the best point made in this thread.

But let me expand on the issue. We saw what leadership, defense and timely shotmaking can go. We saw what unselfish play and excellent ball movement can do. Not to rip on Tinsley - but the Pacers team has changed with Dunleavy on the floor - someone who brings point guard skills to whatever position he plays - he can make plays - he can create. We don't need a point guard who has to dominate the ball and a point guard who needs to create all the plays. And when Dun isn't on the floor Daniels more than likely will be, and he can also create things.

So I don't think the new Pacers need a point guard like Tinsley as much as the old Pacers did.

You're alluding I believe, to the notion of a "point forward" like Scottie Pippen. I think that MDJ and MD both have characteristics consistent with a point forward.

It's a good point, and we might be forced to explore this game style a bit more given the circumstances.

Since86

01-23-2007, 01:11 PM

I think anyone that doesn't think RC can run a free flowing offense needs to watch a tape of the first half, mostly the second quarter.

I know people are wondering why Dun Dun and Quis wasn't played like that in the second half, but this is only the second game with this roster, and they've had maybe 3 practices together.

It's still a big work in progress. RC has to adjust just as much as the players. He just got two big pieces to the puzzle that play a totally different style of the players they just got rid of. He needs an adjustment time, just like everyone else.

Now, if he doesn't go with that lineup more often, I'm gonna be pissed. But for the time being, I see it more as a trial and error.

But that second quarter was amazing to watch. I was really really PO'd that 24 was bumped an hour back, but it let me watch more of the game and that performance almost made me forget about 24 all together.

The difference between the first half and the second half in regards to the lineups on the floor and the production seemed pretty obvious. I'm hoping DunDun is the smart player RC has been looking for and let's the team run more with him and Quis.

CableKC

01-23-2007, 01:20 PM

I think anyone that doesn't think RC can run a free flowing offense needs to watch a tape of the first half, mostly the second quarter.

I know people are wondering why Dun Dun and Quis wasn't played like that in the second half, but this is only the second game with this roster, and they've had maybe 3 practices together.

It's still a big work in progress. RC has to adjust just as much as the players. He just got two big pieces to the puzzle that play a totally different style of the players they just got rid of. He needs an adjustment time, just like everyone else.

Now, if he doesn't go with that lineup more often, I'm gonna be pissed. But for the time being, I see it more as a trial and error.

But that second quarter was amazing to watch. I was really really PO'd that 24 was bumped an hour back, but it let me watch more of the game and that performance almost made me forget about 24 all together.

The difference between the first half and the second half in regards to the lineups on the floor and the production seemed pretty obvious. I'm hoping DunDun is the smart player RC has been looking for and let's the team run more with him and Quis.
I had to leave the Game thread after the 1st couple of minutes of the 3rd QTR. The only thing I noticed before I headed out was that Marquis hadn't stepped onto the court for the first couple of minutes in the 3rd...which was surprising given that he was 5/5 from the field up to that point. The only thing I continually saw from the NBA Recaps on NBATV was that the Bulls were able to pull back to a 7 point deficit with that 3pt shot from Gordon at the end of the 3rd QTR.

How was the 1st/2nd half different?

Was the lineup the signficantly different?

Mourning

01-23-2007, 01:24 PM

I think anyone that doesn't think RC can run a free flowing offense needs to watch a tape of the first half, mostly the second quarter.

I know people are wondering why Dun Dun and Quis wasn't played like that in the second half, but this is only the second game with this roster, and they've had maybe 3 practices together.

It's still a big work in progress. RC has to adjust just as much as the players. He just got two big pieces to the puzzle that play a totally different style of the players they just got rid of. He needs an adjustment time, just like everyone else.

Now, if he doesn't go with that lineup more often, I'm gonna be pissed. But for the time being, I see it more as a trial and error.

But that second quarter was amazing to watch. I was really really PO'd that 24 was bumped an hour back, but it let me watch more of the game and that performance almost made me forget about 24 all together.

The difference between the first half and the second half in regards to the lineups on the floor and the production seemed pretty obvious. I'm hoping DunDun is the smart player RC has been looking for and let's the team run more with him and Quis.

Precisely the points I was trying to make in my previous post, but you worded it better :thumbsup:.

We need a little more patience here in Pacersnation my friends :).

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

MagicRat

01-23-2007, 01:37 PM

How was the 1st/2nd half different?

Jamaal somehow managed to stagnate the offense from the bench, leading to a paltry 38 second half points.......

Los Angeles

01-23-2007, 01:55 PM

That is the best point made in this thread.

But let me expand on the issue. We saw what leadership, defense and timely shotmaking can go. We saw what unselfish play and excellent ball movement can do. Not to rip on Tinsley - but the Pacers team has changed with Dunleavy on the floor - someone who brings point guard skills to whatever position he plays - he can make plays - he can create. We don't need a point guard who has to dominate the ball and a point guard who needs to create all the plays. And when Dun isn't on the floor Daniels more than likely will be, and he can also create things.

So I don't think the new Pacers need a point guard like Tinsley as much as the old Pacers did.

So if the Pacers can find a point guard who can just get the team into their offense - and by that I mean make the pass to start the offense (because once that happens we don't need a true point guard) If the Pacers can find a point guard who is a above average shooter a guy teams won't leave wide open all the time and if the pacers can find a point guard who is an above average defender - I think that is all they need. Don't misread what I'm saying because the player I'm describing is AJ. I don't expect the pacers to re-acquire him - but if the Pacers could acquire a point guard of that caliber - I'd be happy.

I was also a very big AJ supporter post 03-04.

AJ's game improved so much I couldn't believe it. I would trade Tins for AJ straight up right now if I had the chance. I really would.

Anthem

01-23-2007, 02:24 PM

Now that is interesting..Can anyone at the game confirm SEEING Tinsley in uniform during pre-game?
No, he was in the suit when he came out. But this wasn't just on the Bulls feed... I've mentioned it in at least two posts.

On the FSI feed, the Indy commentators said Tinsley was held out because of his lower back. That he came into the locker room and started to suit up, but that the trainers told him they were holding him out for tonight.

Arcadian

01-23-2007, 02:32 PM

I don't know what to do about the point guard. Here are some thoughts:

PGs take a long time to get to the point where they can run an offense. There is a huge learning curve and most pgs are at their best at running an offense later in their careers. Most hyped young pg are scorers not distributors.

Tins has the talent to be an all-star.

I love point forwards because they take that pressure off point guards. As a team you have more flexablity as to who you play at that position. With Dunleavy I'm not sure Tins--as the kind of play he can be--is as important now.

If we go for another point guard I want one of two things--an atheletic defender or a dependable scorer in the fourth quarter. I would be less excited if we went for a point guard who is a passer because I think we have less of a need for that and Tins is already that player or a player who we hope will just make less mistakes.

Quis

01-23-2007, 02:53 PM

They're probably going to go after Gasol. Something like Gasol/filler for Gordon/Deng/PJ Brown/pick.

Duhon would be nice, but it would probably take a bit more than Harrison to get him.

I don't know if it would take more to be honest. Duhon's got some serious, serious flaws.

To me, the people clamoring for Chris Duhon seem like people with the grass is always greener on the other side mentality. Have you all seen Duhon's "production"? It's lousier than Tinsley's. And his FG% is scary bad. 37.9% for is career. Ouch. I don't think he nor Tinsley is our answer. I'd take Jose Calderon or someone like Sergio Rodriguez over either of them.

Quis

01-23-2007, 02:54 PM

And I sure do wish we would've signed Mike "Mr. Underrated" James with our MLE.

aceace

01-23-2007, 10:08 PM

Would you trade quis and foster for Ray Allen?

Jermaniac

01-23-2007, 10:09 PM

yes

speakout4

01-23-2007, 10:27 PM

I also like Dunleavy for the simple reason that he like DA moves all the time. That was what Reggie did; Dunleavy doesn't have cement shoes like Al and some others. Runs his man ragged. However it seems that Dunleavy doesn't set up long enough just before he takes his shot. I don't know whether that's mechanics or what but it would not surprise me that he is the best of this trade in the long run.

ApNeDtRiEeW

01-23-2007, 10:30 PM

I think Luke Ridnour would put this team over the top. He plays moderate defense (worlds better than Sarunas), a pass first guy and he can hit the three.

EXACTLY what we need, the Darrel Armstrong type but at the age where he could provide us with it every night.

I was going to also mention Mike Bibby but there is no way we could do anything with his contract.

Anthem

01-23-2007, 11:15 PM

For the record, I'd be fine with Ridnour. Yeah, his D needs work. But he's a solid player on the other side of the ball.

Even with his bad defense, Sarunas could have gotten minutes if he could handle the ball against pressure. He couldn't, so DA or Tinsley always had to handle the ball for him. That meant he couldn't play PG without another PG present.

Ridnour wouldn't have that problem.

andreialta

01-23-2007, 11:22 PM

its so hard to get a good quality point guard now a days, specially a Ridnour type of player.

if ever a deal between them, it must be, Tinsley + 2nd rd pick maybe and a filler, for Ridnour and a filler

i just don;t think that Sonics will do this, who knows, maybe Tinsley starts to play good now

Mourning

01-24-2007, 01:51 AM

Would you trade quis and foster for Ray Allen?

The person who wouldn't would have to be send to some psychiatrist institution. Every Pacersfan with a normal state of mind says "yes" to that deal.